MrT's mod log

Started by MrT, February 17, 2018, 22:06

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MrT

Hi Lamcote

I don't disagree with you or Shnazzle. And I'm considering your valid points. Thank you for your input. I will however point out that the combination of operating conditions which leads to emissions produced is a balance and this is what I hope to master. Leaner by default means less HO & CO since less fuel is burning. It is controlling the NOx that is the challenge.

Also, a catalyst does not participate in the reaction, it facilitates it through chemical composition. Heat and unburned fuel are bad however I plan to control these to mitigate any damage.

I appreciate all the input folks and it is considered and factored into my experiment. Cheers
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

#26
You seem to be ignoring (or forgetting) the principal emission. HC, NOx and CO jointly constitute a tiny proportion of the total emissions from an engine. Controlling these is no use if you kill the cat by running lean and water injection can't help you with this no matter what you do with it.

I say again, running lean will kill the cat, that is why manufacturers spend millions making sure engines operate at Lambda =1!
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

MrT

Hi Lamcote
Forgive me, which is the principal emission please? You listed all 3.
I agree damaging the catalytic converter is a concern. I believe however that the emissions can be controlled to negate the need for a catalytic converter for the Euro 4(?) requirements of my car. However that is not my aim. I also believe that the catalytic converter will not degrade from the operating conditions I envisage using.
It's experimental so let's see.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

#28
Well, the principal emission is CO2 (carbon dioxide), this constitutes about 95% of the emissions from an engine, measured in grams/mile.

HC and CO (carbon monoxide) are inevitably going to be less with a lean mixture (because you're reducing the hydrocarbon input) but the main reason cars have cats is to reduce CO2, and this is your problem.

As I keep saying, a cat needs Lambda =1 to work effectively, a lean mixture means the catatalyst doesn't have the correct chemically balanced environment to do its job (turning CO to H2O), so it won't work, leading to failed MOT CO2 emissions and ultimately to a dead cat. Water injection won't improve this situation unfortunately.

Whilst I acknowledge that politicians seem to have miraculously forgotten about the importance of CO2 emissions recently, you're friendly local MOT tester hasn't!
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

MrT

Thanks Lamcote. That is an excellent point I'd overlooked somewhat. I will add it to my considerations and see what I can do about it.

PS, I don't  plan to stray far from Lambda = 1 and so keep within the typical operating range of the catalytic converter hopefully.
All experimental. And as much as OEMs and developers have probably tried it, it's as much the journey for me.

Thanks again folks.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

It will be interesting to follow your experiment, I look forward to reading about it, keep the updates coming.
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

MrT

Thanks lamcote

I had another thought this morning. Many city cars don't drive for long enough to warm up properly, mine suffers this plight art of the week. So they aren't running efficiently at this point ie below Lambda = 1. I know the catalytic converters suffer but it takes a few years. Purely on that basis I'd be ok with this attrition rate.

But, that is in a rich condition. I understand (and am open to correction) that the lean running is a problem primarily because of excess heat. A rich cold start is trying to generate heat to warm up the engine & catalytic converter, whereas lean running sustains high heat past this point in time therefore building up in excess in components. On that premise by controlling the temperatures with water injection I should control this better.

It does not address the chemical imbalance of glasses and reaction however, I recognise this.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

Call the midlife!

#32
I'm still following this with interest, not out of a desire to do the same but hoping you find a workaround you're satisfied with.
The biggest recurring issue to me with all your experiments is that all of your mitigants and resolutions involve adding mass to your car or increased demand from the engine via extra electrics for probably very modest gains in performance, so ultimately it's going to be the power to weight ratio that kills your hopes of an economical power increase.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
60% of the time it works everytime...

lamcote

#33
I suppose there are two issues:

1. Long term - To see any significant benefit you will have to run lean most of the time. If you are running lean most of the time you will need to carry an awful lot of water to protect the cat. As Call the midlife has just said, this will probably be counter productive.
2. Short term - you will fail the MOT emissions test and be causing even more pollution than a VW on a daily basis
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

MrT

That's an excellent point also. Yes, the weight is a big consideration. Power on the other hand is potentially addressed with a supercharger. This should allow more power only when needed and still achieve the lean running. I agree the electronics is getting complex, also why I was asking about ECUMaster black group buy deal as that looks to have enough extra control outputs and obviously the ability to map them to help achieve this.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

MrT

Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

#36
I understand that your objective of running lean is to achieve greater fuel economy?

If that is correct, the weight of the water will be of significant detriment to your cause.

However, please don't let any of us put you off experimenting. We're all here to make our cars just the way we want by whatever means we choose.


Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

Call the midlife!

Quote from: MrT on March 12, 2018, 10:39
That's an excellent point also. Yes, the weight is a big consideration. Power on the other hand is potentially addressed with a supercharger. This should allow more power only when needed and still achieve the lean running. I agree the electronics is getting complex, also why I was asking about ECUMaster black group buy deal as that looks to have enough extra control outputs and obviously the ability to map them to help achieve this.
When I mentioned extra electrics Tyler I was meaning more the increased demand on the engine itself to power all your additional motors, pumps and condensers etc  as opposed to the CAC side of things.
Whatever form of water spray system/condenser you look at will ultimately give an increased draw on your engine, much the same way as aircon does, as I'm sure you've already considered.
But as Lamcote has already said, someone has to be a pioneer, it might as well be you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
60% of the time it works everytime...

MrT

#38
Thanks folks.

So back to CO2 quickly, this is directly proportional to fuel efficiency/combustion so using less fuel reduces this.

Regarding weight and economy, alot of my driving is steady state on the motorway at 50, 60, 70mph so weight will only be a real issue under repeated acceleration. And I usually drive alone so it is much like carrying a passenger.

CTM

I don't envisage much more power electronics needed. The water injection isn't high power and the condenser design I have in mind is air-air or possibly air-water but not using a cooling system, rather using the volume of water stored to cool the glasses and catch the water. But that's way off, I need to test the concept and develop a simple working solution first.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

shnazzle

I think you'll find yourself a bit disappointed with progress as you go to be honest. Bear in mind that new cars under the insane EU6 emissions regulations have gone to the farthest end of a fart to reduce emissions and none of them do things like this.
What they do is reducing wasted usage (start stop), "recovering" energy by things like KERS-like systems, tyres that reduce rolling resistance (huge mpg saving) and even aerodynamic changes on the go to reduce resistance.

Diesel fuel packs a very different chemical potential and cannot be compared to petrol when  it comes to tuning unfortunately.
So don't seek support from that angle. Totally different.

Also, bear in mind the 1zz-fe was basically made for efficiency and "bang for buck" so it's hard to improve on in this regard.
...neutiquam erro.

Carolyn

As previously said.  This idea has been around for a long time.....

Never really caught on.
Perry Byrnes Memorial Award 2016, 2018.  Love this club. 
https://www.mr2roc.org/forum/index.php?topic=63866.0

MrT

Hi Shnazzle

I'm not trying to reduce emissions, that is a sideline challenge to meet MOT regulations and I might just ignore it and switch off the whole setup for MOT testing.

Hi Carolynne

I've not seen that but looked at many of those so called claims. Bottom line, water doesn't burn... And I'm not trying to do that.

I did my Bachelor's degree thesis on the electro-mechanical disassociation of water molecules with a view to use the expansive force in a propulsive capacity such as modified implementation of an ICE. That is not what I'm trying to achieve here either, it carries complexities in electronics and power supply plus electromagnetic interference or pollution causing interference in nearby electronics etc.

My aim is simply to recover the significant excess heat lost out the exhaust of a ICE by absorbing it into water vapour to create a flash steam reaction as the vapour gasifies and generates significant additional expansive force.

Nothing is free or perpetual or any of that lark, I'm trying to convert thermal energy to mechanical energy through energy transfer into a separate carrier (water) and harness that energy in the same way the fuel energy is harnessed from heating air to expand a chamber volume and force a piston down.

It's rather simple if you treat it as what it is. The trick is going to be tuning it and finding a balance between the 2 reactions occuring. Fuel burns slowly, but the water will gasify rapidly when sufficient heat is available and it's expansive force is significantly greater than the standard fuel-air reaction. So the timing may need to be retarded because the lean mixture is going to ignite and burn faster but also the critical point in time when the water expands must be well past TDC of the stroke as it is powerful and shorter lived than the fuel burn so should occur at the greatest stroke point to maximise energy transfer to rotational mechanical force. Also the fuel - water ratio will have a tipping point at which water vapour begins to saturate and impede the combustion so this must be achieved.

Ultimately direct injection of the water would be best but we haven't really got the technology for that currently. This would offer even more effective performance in an auto-ignition engine (such as diesel) as you control timing, volume and fuel ratios fully to optimise the reaction.

But let's walk before we try running. And I haven't got a hard timeline for this so it may be a while coming but I will keep the forum updated for curiosity sake.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

#42
I have just been reading lots of information about the latest Bosch Waterboost water injection system.

It's worth some research as all the advantages and disadvantages of water injection are addressed in various articles, however the outcome doesn't appear too promising for your experiment, as described above, for a couple of reasons:

1. You are trying to run the engine lean to save fuel, thereby operating away from Lambda =1 as much as possible. Bosch have arrived at the conclusion that water injection is best used just to reduce over fueling under hard acceleration ie they actually finish up running the engine at/closer to Lambda =1 more of the time, not less (this will be to retain cat efficiency for CO2 emissions). This is why their system uses so little water.
2. You suggest that the expansion of the water (from its vaporisation) after TDC adds to the power of the engine. Bosch think that the cooling effect from the water's latent heat of vaporisation, if it occurrs after TDC, actually reduces power by chilling the cylinder during the combustion phase, which is just when you really want to have most heat and therefore maximum expansion. Hence, they choose port injection which ensures vaporisation occurs during inlet/compression and prior to the combustion phase.

But it's all interesting stuff.
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

MrT

Thanks lamcote.

I'll definitely have a look at that. One concern I have is you keep mentioning CO2 emissions but the catalytic converter doesn't affect these. It actually makes more CO2 by reacting NOx and CO gasses... CO2 only reduces or increases proportional to fuel consumption.

Secondly, Bosch are correct that when using lesser quantity of water it could cool rather than heat the air hence affect power but that is because insufficient heat was generated initially. And this is the dangerous game. You need to make lots of heat and then absorb it into the water to generate the super heated / flash steam reaction. And this is where running lean aids that heat generation and more efficient running. BUT lean comprises NOx emissions unless you go VERY lean and then petrol won't ignite by spark and requires auto-ignition much like a diesel operates.

I will have a look at the Bosch information.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

#44
Well, maybe you can make it work, I will watch with interest. The Bosch info is definitely worth a read.

Edit. Thinking about it more, doesn't your graph on page 1 show quite clearly that you need the cat to be working effectively to achieve acceptably low HC and CO emissions, even when running lean, and it won't do that if you're not running at Lambda =1?

To me, that's the key sticking point (and would explain the reasons behind the approach taken by Bosch).
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

MrT

I think you've read the graph backwards. Lean is greater than lambda 1 ie right hand side of the graph.
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

#46
I realise which way round it is but the important point is, the solid lines show emissions after the cat, ie assuming it is working effectively. If the cat isn't working you will be getting emissions at the level shown by the dotted lines.

I have revised my answer to a simple summary below which may help clarify the position one way or another?

Hopefully I have understood your point correctly?
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

lamcote

#47
I think I can simplify this discussion;

Are you saying that there is only one reason manufacturers don't run lean, that being NOx, there's nothing else that's a problem?

If so, you are suggesting that by reducing NOx through using water injection, you can then run lean?

If the above is correct, I would suggest there are actually two reasons why manufacturers don't run lean;

1.NOx, (this may be addressed by water injection?)
2. Running lean means the cat doesn't work effectively and you can fail MOT emissions tests on HC and or CO, not just NOx. We know this is true because it happens every day at MOT stations. If a car is not properly maintained and isn't running at Lambda =1 eg an air inlet leak or a broken injector causes a car to run lean, it can fail the HC and or CO emissions test because the cat isn't working effectively. (This can't be addressed by water injection and I believe the only solution is to run at Lambda =1?)

If this isn't the case I agree with shnazzle and would be amazed that the manufacturers haven't run lean to improve fuel economy, given the pressure they're under. And surely Bosch would have tested this when developing their system. If not, I suggest you get a patent application in quick.

Have I missed anything?



Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.

MrT

#48
Hi Lamcote

No I think you are scratching the surface correctly. I'll continue my research and see what happens when I try it out.

At the least I'll not run lean but the water expansion will give more power and therefore less throttle required so less fuel used, or more burnouts and drifting
Cheers
Tyler

RIPieces: Sable \'05 Roadster \'Red\' edition.
Project: MR-S import (JDM) now my toy and mule for:
SC build OR a 2AR-FXE swap (ref: Frankenstein Motorworks) OR Electric conversion
AND rebody with a fibreglass replica of Porsche 550 Spyder.

lamcote

Hopefully you can find a setup you like.
Silver 2004 MR2 -  Unmodified but very shiny.